Apple’s MagSafe lawsuit tests limits of first-sale doctrine

Apple has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Sanho Corporation, the …

Sanho Corporation, the company behind the well-known HyperMac external batteries, is being sued by Apple for violation of the company's MagSafe and 30-pin iPod connection patents. Apple filed a lawsuit (PDF) this month (via AppleInsider), accusing Sanho of selling products that make use of Apple's proprietary technology without authorization.

Sanho/HyperMac's product line has become fairly well known among laptop power users who travel—the company sells high-capacity external batteries that can connect to any MacBook, MacBook Pro, or MacBook Air in order to juice up the machine's internal battery or keep it going for hours beyond its normal capacity. (We here at Ars are fans of HyperMac products.) The HyperMac brand recently added connectors to its batteries to allow users to charge their iPads through Apple's 30-pin connector, so the same battery can service both your MacBook and your other Apple portable devices.

Apple offers licenses for its 30-pin connector so that accessory makers can sell products to go with Apple's iDevices, but the company keeps the MagSafe connector to itself. Apparently, Sanho has authorization to sell neither: in its complaint, Apple accuses the company of violating six of its patents related to both technologies. Apple says Sanho's alleged infringement has caused damage to Apple's business, and wants a permanent injunction against the company (as well as unspecified damages).

The catch here is that Sanho's products don't actually recreate Apple's technologies—or at least that's what the company says on its website. The product pages on the HyperMac site says that the products come with "original MacSafe power connector[s] for maximum compatibility." Basically, Sanho says it's reusing Apple's own connectors in the sale of its own products, and the same goes for the 30-pin iPad connector.

If that is in fact the case, Apple may find itself butting up against the patent version of the first sale doctrine (commonly called the "exhaustion doctrine"), which limits the patent owner's control over patented items after it has been sold the first time. Apple's customers can generally do what they please with Apple's products after purchasing them, including selling them to other parties.

The concept has been hotly debated in court as of late, however, so there's no guarantee of who will win if this case goes to court. Apple will undoubtedly defend its patents aggressively, and Sanho will likely have to show that Apple's patent products were bought and modified lawfully in the US before they were resold to customers as HyperMac products.

I'm not a fan of Apple telling me what I can do with the crap I buy from them. They got their money, I got my product. Transaction ended. Maybe it's not that simple with software, updates and support, but as far as the physical item is concerned, that's mine, all mine, to do with as I please.

I never thought that the day would come when Apple would replace Microsoft as the evil empire. Parts for components are purchased outright. You can't license components like you do software. Sanho is not taking Apples parts and relabelling them as their own, they are using the part to make a newer and better battery. The battery is what they are selling.

I never thought that the day would come when Apple would replace Microsoft as the evil empire. Parts for components are purchased outright. You can't license components like you do software. Sanho is not taking Apples parts and relabelling them as their own, they are using the part to make a newer and better battery. The battery is what they are selling.

People are always surprised when companies are primarily concerned with making money. Why is this a surprise?! This is why they exist. If they realize people are actually buying less of their stuff due to a business decision then they will maybe change their policy. Otherwise as long as people buy Office and Windows and Macbooks and iPhones there will always be the occasional business decision that benefits the company over the customer. Just depends which way loses them more.

I never thought that the day would come when Apple would replace Microsoft as the evil empire. Parts for components are purchased outright. You can't license components like you do software. Sanho is not taking Apples parts and relabelling them as their own, they are using the part to make a newer and better battery. The battery is what they are selling.

That day hasn't come yet. When Apple gets convicted for criminal antitrust violations, then you can rightfully say that day has come. But right now, Apple is fighting Sanho using legal means. Which is certainly not what Microsoft did back then.

That day hasn't come yet. When Apple gets convicted for criminal antitrust violations, then you can rightfully say that day has come. But right now, Apple is fighting Sanho using legal means. Which is certainly not what Microsoft did back then.

I'm not a fan of Apple telling me what I can do with the crap I buy from them. They got their money, I got my product. Transaction ended. Maybe it's not that simple with software, updates and support, but as far as the physical item is concerned, that's mine, all mine, to do with as I please.

I don't want Apple to win this one, but I can understand the argument. If some other device is going to charge or supply power to the laptop, it could fry the thing and leave the customer calling Apple for a replacement.

I never thought that the day would come when Apple would replace Microsoft as the evil empire. Parts for components are purchased outright. You can't license components like you do software. Sanho is not taking Apples parts and relabelling them as their own, they are using the part to make a newer and better battery. The battery is what they are selling.

People are always surprised when companies are primarily concerned with making money. Why is this a surprise?! This is why they exist. If they realize people are actually buying less of their stuff due to a business decision then they will maybe change their policy. Otherwise as long as people buy Office and Windows and Macbooks and iPhones there will always be the occasional business decision that benefits the company over the customer. Just depends which way loses them more.

I just find it interesting how quickly peoples opinions change depending on the company(s) involved.

In one case, Apple's business includes licensing their patents for the 30-pin connector (which Sanho may be sidestepping), so Apple is not receiving licensing fees it claims.

In the second, Apple does not license it's patented MagSafe connector, but rather sells it's own products. So Sanho may be damaging sales of Apple's own products by providing an unlicensed product.

Clearly, Sanho is tiptoeing here, but they may be tiptoeing right within the inside of the law. The question is, where is Sanho getting the "official" parts if they don't have the required licenses...?

There's a typo in a quote… "original MacSafe power connector[s] for maximum compatibility." The site actually says MagSafe, not MacSafe.

It's easily understandable why Apple's concerned as well. Hidden in the light grey "fine print" at the bottom of the page you have this: "The MagSafe cable and connector is manufactured by Apple, Inc and modified to be compatible with HyperMac."

That's a different characterization than the easily found quote Jacqui tried to use of "Our charging cables use original Apple MagSafe connectors for maximum compatibility."

Basically the company is leveraging Apple's brand and product as to create a sense of endorsement or superior quality and compatibility for it's own HACK and bastardized cables. Apple has ever right to defend its brand and customers who are likely to be duped into not realizing these are "used" or otherwise "modified" hacked up cables rather than authorized MagSafe products created to Apple's standards.

how are they using original magsafe connectors from apple? they only come on apple's laptop power supplies and are not detachable like the AC cord. Are they really buying apple power supplies and then chopping off the magsafe cord?

on their site, a macbook battery sells for $199 and includes a magsafe adapter cable. not sure if that is enough to buy a sacrificial apple-branded power supply along with the components of the battery and still make decent money.

how are they using original magsafe connectors from apple? they only come on apple's laptop power supplies and are not detachable like the AC cord. Are they really buying apple power supplies and then chopping off the magsafe cord?

on their site, a macbook battery sells for $199 and includes a magsafe adapter cable. not sure if that is enough to buy a sacrificial apple-branded power supply along with the components of the battery and still make decent money.

Easy,They are buying macbook power supplies, and reusing the transformer and the magsafe connector, toss in a new case, and some batteries.

Furthermore, the only logical reason for Apple's weird non-standard interfaces to exist in the first place is for the purpose of trying to extort money through the court system, as in this case. If Apple valued their customers they would be keen to offer them the benifits provided by standards, rather then being different just for the sake of being difficult (and litigious).

In one case, Apple's business includes licensing their patents for the 30-pin connector (which Sanho may be sidestepping), so Apple is not receiving licensing fees it claims.

In the second, Apple does not license it's patented MagSafe connector, but rather sells it's own products. So Sanho may be damaging sales of Apple's own products by providing an unlicensed product.

Clearly, Sanho is tiptoeing here, but they may be tiptoeing right within the inside of the law. The question is, where is Sanho getting the "official" parts if they don't have the required licenses...?

When people talk about piracy they always want to see proof of loss sale lets see the same here.

I never thought that the day would come when Apple would replace Microsoft as the evil empire. Parts for components are purchased outright. You can't license components like you do software. Sanho is not taking Apples parts and relabelling them as their own, they are using the part to make a newer and better battery. The battery is what they are selling.

People are always surprised when companies are primarily concerned with making money. Why is this a surprise?! This is why they exist. If they realize people are actually buying less of their stuff due to a business decision then they will maybe change their policy. Otherwise as long as people buy Office and Windows and Macbooks and iPhones there will always be the occasional business decision that benefits the company over the customer. Just depends which way loses them more.

Theres making money hand over fist and making money with a gun pointed to your head. Both MS and Apple tend to use the gun method...I am fine with them making money but when they get anal about every little thing thats when I say enough is enough.

In one case, Apple's business includes licensing their patents for the 30-pin connector (which Sanho may be sidestepping), so Apple is not receiving licensing fees it claims.

In the second, Apple does not license it's patented MagSafe connector, but rather sells it's own products. So Sanho may be damaging sales of Apple's own products by providing an unlicensed product.

Clearly, Sanho is tiptoeing here, but they may be tiptoeing right within the inside of the law. The question is, where is Sanho getting the "official" parts if they don't have the required licenses...?

When people talk about piracy they always want to see proof of loss sale lets see the same here.

Since when did apple sell batteries? I mean half their products are locked from battery replacement.............

People are always surprised when companies are primarily concerned with making money. Why is this a surprise?! This is why they exist. If they realize people are actually buying less of their stuff due to a business decision then they will maybe change their policy. Otherwise as long as people buy Office and Windows and Macbooks and iPhones there will always be the occasional business decision that benefits the company over the customer. Just depends which way loses them more.

I don't think most are surprised that companies try to make money, but become upset by some of the ways they try to make money. A company does not need to be a jerk to make money. Although a lot of companies seem to think so.

Yet many seem ready to excuse or defend anything a company does in the name of making money. In this case, I am quite concerned that Apple seems to be trying to kill the first-sale doctrine to do it.

If Apple wants to make the money instead of Sanho, they could make competitive external battery products. They could compete in the market place for the money. They do not need to resort to questionable lawsuits.

In my opinion, a company is always better off competing by building a better product, rather than competing by calling in the lawyers. I do know that sometimes you have to call in the lawyers, but it should be kept to a minimum. And too many companies try to use legal obstacles instead of making a better product.

There's a typo in a quote… "original MacSafe power connector[s] for maximum compatibility." The site actually says MagSafe, not MacSafe.

It's easily understandable why Apple's concerned as well. Hidden in the light grey "fine print" at the bottom of the page you have this: "The MagSafe cable and connector is manufactured by Apple, Inc and modified to be compatible with HyperMac."

That's a different characterization than the easily found quote Jacqui tried to use of "Our charging cables use original Apple MagSafe connectors for maximum compatibility."

Basically the company is leveraging Apple's brand and product as to create a sense of endorsement or superior quality and compatibility for it's own HACK and bastardized cables. Apple has ever right to defend its brand and customers who are likely to be duped into not realizing these are "used" or otherwise "modified" hacked up cables rather than authorized MagSafe products created to Apple's standards.

Uh because it's difficult to cut a cable and rewire it? There are certainly legal arguments to made on both sides but to view this as apple protecting customers from a crappy hack job (which is not the case at all) is disingenuous. This wouldn't be on apple radar if they were not making high quality products that were taking away from their sales.

I can't get too mad at apple for playing this game, everyone does but I'm more upset over the law and how it doesn't protect the consumers. What apple is essentially doing is using a proprietary connection to keep battery makers from competing with them plain and simple. They don't do it with the iPods and shit simply because they know they can't make nor do they want to make all those accessories so they licence their proprietary (how they have a patent on it is beyond me and says a lot about the state of patent law because you can do anything with that connector with a simple usb) connector and make money off of others people work. Magsafe however is is 1 product batteries and you can bet apple will milk all the money off of that one. they should be forced to licence that as well because it's very clear they are not protecting consumers.

There's a typo in a quote… "original MacSafe power connector[s] for maximum compatibility." The site actually says MagSafe, not MacSafe.

It's easily understandable why Apple's concerned as well. Hidden in the light grey "fine print" at the bottom of the page you have this: "The MagSafe cable and connector is manufactured by Apple, Inc and modified to be compatible with HyperMac."

That's a different characterization than the easily found quote Jacqui tried to use of "Our charging cables use original Apple MagSafe connectors for maximum compatibility."

Basically the company is leveraging Apple's brand and product as to create a sense of endorsement or superior quality and compatibility for it's own HACK and bastardized cables. Apple has ever right to defend its brand and customers who are likely to be duped into not realizing these are "used" or otherwise "modified" hacked up cables rather than authorized MagSafe products created to Apple's standards.

Uh because it's difficult to cut a cable and rewire it? There are certainly legal arguments to made on both sides but to view this as apple protecting customers from a crappy hack job (which is not the case at all) is disingenuous. This wouldn't be on apple radar if they were not making high quality products that were taking away from their sales.

I can't get too mad at apple for playing this game, everyone does but I'm more upset over the law and how it doesn't protect the consumers. What apple is essentially doing is using a proprietary connection to keep battery makers from competing with them plain and simple. They don't do it with the iPods and shit simply because they know they can't make nor do they want to make all those accessories so they licence their proprietary (how they have a patent on it is beyond me and says a lot about the state of patent law because you can do anything with that connector with a simple usb) connector and make money off of others people work. Magsafe however is is 1 product batteries and you can bet apple will milk all the money off of that one. they should be forced to licence that as well because it's very clear they are not protecting consumers.

Consumers are there to be taken advantage of and its the same for voters............

In one case, Apple's business includes licensing their patents for the 30-pin connector (which Sanho may be sidestepping), so Apple is not receiving licensing fees it claims.

In the second, Apple does not license it's patented MagSafe connector, but rather sells it's own products. So Sanho may be damaging sales of Apple's own products by providing an unlicensed product.

Clearly, Sanho is tiptoeing here, but they may be tiptoeing right within the inside of the law. The question is, where is Sanho getting the "official" parts if they don't have the required licenses...?

When people talk about piracy they always want to see proof of loss sale lets see the same here.

Since when did apple sell batteries? I mean half their products are locked from battery replacement.............

That's kinda the idea, you know that microsoft had to spend billions of dollars defending and losing in court. Lock out your competitors and force the peons to buy your product or have to replace their equipment with your refurbs. Makes them a jackload of money, it's how apple is so huge while remaining so small (pc side anyway, but soon to be mobile too)

In one case, Apple's business includes licensing their patents for the 30-pin connector (which Sanho may be sidestepping), so Apple is not receiving licensing fees it claims.

In the second, Apple does not license it's patented MagSafe connector, but rather sells it's own products. So Sanho may be damaging sales of Apple's own products by providing an unlicensed product.

Clearly, Sanho is tiptoeing here, but they may be tiptoeing right within the inside of the law. The question is, where is Sanho getting the "official" parts if they don't have the required licenses...?

When people talk about piracy they always want to see proof of loss sale lets see the same here.

Since when did apple sell batteries? I mean half their products are locked from battery replacement.............

That's kinda the idea, you know that microsoft had to spend billions of dollars defending and losing in court. Lock out your competitors and force the peons to buy your product or have to replace their equipment with your refurbs. Makes them a jackload of money, it's how apple is so huge while remaining so small (pc side anyway, but soon to be mobile too)

Uhg and now with the help of copyright they will own us all body and soul. ><

There are so many pins, because it can interface so many things, there is USB 2, power, it can output Component or composite video, line in for a mic, and so on.. all those analog interfaces require thier own wires.

HyperMac's batteries (I have one, the big 222 Wh) don't really compete with anything Apple sells. There are really only two companies in the high-end external battery market, HyperMac and BatteryGeek. I looked pretty hard and couldn't find any other serious products. There may be some crappy jokes out there, but for a battery that actually extends the run-time of a laptop, there are just two options and Apple doesn't have a horse in the race.

This is more likely about control of the ecosystem and wanting an even higher rent from HyperMac. They sell a $500 battery, and Apple "only" gets $80 for the power adapter, probably even less if they buy them wholesale.

Oh, and fuck Apple and their crappy proprietary connector. It adds $80 to the cost of my battery and means I can't get a compatible part anywhere. I can't find a legit "MagSafe" connector out there for under $80 for ANY product. After using it for a while, I'd trade it in a second for the simple, reliable round connector that any Lenovo or Dell has. The ones that don't randomly disconnect when you reposition the laptop. I can't remember the last time I had a problem with a power connector getting tripped on and yanking the laptop. It's a weak excuse for having a proprietary connector with irritating flaws and high prices. Love the laptop though.

There are so many pins, because it can interface so many things, there is USB 2, power, it can output Component or composite video, line in for a mic, and so on.. all those analog interfaces require thier own wires.

Thanks! That does make much more sense than my seriously uneducated guessing.

I'm having trouble understanding this. Is it true that it would be illegal for a company simply reverse engineer a connector that fits the apple specifications? (I understand that is not what the company is doing, but it got me thinking.) Secondly, it seems that if a company were to buy apple laptops and replace the screen with a better one and then resell it (somehow pulling this off at a profit I presume) that the same argument by apple would imply that that's illegal as well. Basically that others cannot improve upon the hardware unless explicitly told they may do so by apple. I'd appreciate a clarification from anyone in the know.

In one case, Apple's business includes licensing their patents for the 30-pin connector (which Sanho may be sidestepping), so Apple is not receiving licensing fees it claims.

In the second, Apple does not license it's patented MagSafe connector, but rather sells it's own products. So Sanho may be damaging sales of Apple's own products by providing an unlicensed product.

Clearly, Sanho is tiptoeing here, but they may be tiptoeing right within the inside of the law. The question is, where is Sanho getting the "official" parts if they don't have the required licenses...?

When people talk about piracy they always want to see proof of loss sale lets see the same here.

Comparing apples with a pet rock here. To be analogous to piracy, Sanho would have to exactly copy Apple's part and distribute it for free.

I'm having trouble understanding this. Is it true that it would be illegal for a company simply reverse engineer a connector that fits the apple specifications? (I understand that is not what the company is doing, but it got me thinking.) Secondly, it seems that if a company were to buy apple laptops and replace the screen with a better one and then resell it (somehow pulling this off at a profit I presume) that the same argument by apple would imply that that's illegal as well. Basically that others cannot improve upon the hardware unless explicitly told they may do so by apple. I'd appreciate a clarification from anyone in the know.

IANAL but first part yes reverse engineering the connection is illegal and trivial to do so.

Second part: Not unless the connection between the laptop and screen was proprietary.

In one case, Apple's business includes licensing their patents for the 30-pin connector (which Sanho may be sidestepping), so Apple is not receiving licensing fees it claims.

In the second, Apple does not license it's patented MagSafe connector, but rather sells it's own products. So Sanho may be damaging sales of Apple's own products by providing an unlicensed product.

Clearly, Sanho is tiptoeing here, but they may be tiptoeing right within the inside of the law. The question is, where is Sanho getting the "official" parts if they don't have the required licenses...?

When people talk about piracy they always want to see proof of loss sale lets see the same here.

Comparing apples with a pet rock here. To be analogous to piracy, Sanho would have to exactly copy Apple part and distribute it for free.

Now it's more akin to, say, a sampling in a song.

Naw it be more like youtube, people upload a home video(not a edited mix tape music video,ect) with a bit of copy righted or trade marked stuff in it and the rights owners pitch a fit about their rights being violated for it.

They are reusing parts that was sold to most of the public that upload crap to the net do the same merely reuseing what has already been sold to someone, tho due to the ability to infinitely copy it anythign that tries to make money needs to be licensed, this of coarse dose not work with physical items, or at least should not..